Looking at Australia from space

Earth observation satellites aren't exactly New Space. In fact, they are as Old Space as you can get. But some nations are just starting to appreciate how important that data from space can be.

Australia has just announced its first Government Space Policy. Coincidentally, my year in Australia has been spent on a team developing an Earth-observing radar satellite for measuring the water in Australia's soils.

The Garada synthetic aperture radar satellite. Image: EADS Astrium.

In this article published online today in The Conversation, I argue that there is no more important data for Australia than its water resources. What's curious about the Space Policy is that it doesn't make any commitments to develop this or any other capability.

That discussion is just beginning.

Astronauts to an asteroid: yes or no?

My April 6th post called for a mission shift for NASA: help commercial space industries succeed, don't compete with them.  Other US government departments understand this. The Energy Department sponsors research that helps make electricity more efficient, renewable sources more efficient, and even funds some large-scale projects. The Food and Drug Administration imposes strict tests on pharmaceuticals, which tend to make them more expensive, but in the end add to their safety and hence their desirability. The FAA runs an air traffic control system in order that commercial airlines can be safe and, yes, profitable.

NASA doesn't seem to get this. Case in point: the newly proposed NASA mission to capture an asteroid, tug it to a Lagrange point, and then have astronauts visit it.

The mission was called into question as the NASA Administrator testified before the House Science Committee. He said that "the goal is to remain the world's leader in space exploration." Well, at least there IS a goal. One Congressman asked, "Wouldn't going to the Moon be better preparation for an eventual manned Mars mission?" The Administrator said that "both are good" but that the Moon would be more expensive.

Sadly, the idea that NASA ought to be supporting the fledgling space resources industry didn't show up.

The choice of asteroid over Moon was apparently based on money. The Administrator stated, "Going to the Moon is a factor of three times more expensive." Really? I would pose several questions based on that statement:

1. Does that claim include the $18 BILLION being spent on the Space Launch System and the Orion capsule? In other words, would it cost $54 BILLION for a manned mission to the Moon? Of course not.

2. Then does the Administrator mean that the MARGINAL cost of the asteroid mission, $2.5 billion ABOVE the SLS and Orion development, is 1/3 of the MARGINAL cost of a Moon mission? This suggests that his mental model for re-developing the LEM is $7.5 billion. That seems about right.

3. Has the Administrator spoken to any member of the space resources industry, at Planetary Resources, Deep Space Industries or Shackleton Energy? How do they assess the value of manned asteroid and lunar missions to their own business plans? What would they find most helpful?

The Administrator's statement of purpose, "exploration," can only represent the first phase of human expansion into the solar system. As has happened throughout history:

• The Spanish court sent Columbus to the New World on 4 missions of exploration. But after that, Spain's interest was in settlement, commerce and conquest.
•  James Cook came to the South Pacific on 3 missions of exploration. But after that, Britain needed a place for its prisoners, so Australia was colonized.
•  Lewis and Clark explored the Louisiana Purchase, but the intent was to understand where America's growing population could live, farm and prosper.

 Let us hope that NASA begins to pursue a larger purpose. Perhaps the goal expounded by XCor Aerospace president Jeff Greason, "settlement", is the right one.

I'd propose an alternative goal: an interplanetary economy. This concept emphasizes the role of robots, because human spaceflight is expensive, dangerous, and tends not to add much to the mission set that robots can already perform. NASA and its Congressional supporters are protecting human spaceflight because that was the source of past glory.

And let's go ask Planetary, Deep Space and Shackleton to help put together the long-term strategy. You won't get the same answer from the three of them: Shackleton wants to use astronauts (commercial employees, not NASA ones) to generate fuel from lunar ice. The other two want to extract minerals from asteroids. Where a manned mission to a captured asteroid fits with either of these, I don't know. Couldn't the money be better spent on developing autonomous technologies, robotic on-orbit assembly, and lightweight space robotic components? Perhaps. NASA should be asking people with skin in the game.

Government's role in the space economy: help it grow

My article on the space economy ended with a comparison to commercial aviation. It noted how modest government investments, such as air mail and an air traffic control system, helped that industry bootstrap itself into the economic powerhouse it is today.

A colleague added:

"The role of government is to provide infrastructure and assume large investments and risks that a fledgling private industry cannot carry. 

"The role of private industry is to use the legal framework, infrastructure and new technologies to enhance economic activity in nimble ways.

"A good analogy is the US Eisenhower Interstate highway system which has been estimated to have an ROI of 6:1 for the public money invested. The trucks that roam the highways are not owned or operated by the government but they do rely on the good roads, law and order, and gas station amenities."

Some US government agencies certainly get this. For example, here's the mission of the Federal Aviation Administration: "Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world." By including efficiency in their mission, the FAA is supporting the profitability of commercial air lines.

Similarly the mission of the Department of Commerce is "a business environment that is productive, innovative, fair and safe." They don't actually use the other P-word, profit, because somehow that's politically tainted, but clearly they want to see American business be successful.

Now, what about NASA? Here's what we learn from their vision statement:

"What Does NASA Do?

03.12.13

 

"NASA's vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind.

"To do that, thousands of people have been working around the world -- and off of it -- for 50 years, trying to answer some basic questions. What's out there in space? How do we get there? What will we find? What can we learn there, or learn just by trying to get there, that will make life better here on Earth?"

Does this vision actually support successful space economic activities? If so, it's implicit, not explicit.

NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo programs are underway. Justifications include wanting a backup ISS access capability, not wanting to rely on Russian rockets, and bringing back experiments. But there's nothing there about wanting to see a robust, diverse, sustainable space economy. Nothing about supporting space tourism, off-Earth mining, or space solar power. There's also nothing there about leveraging commercial launch capabilities to make human space exploration more affordable.

In fact, the present emphasis on development of the Space Launch System is competing with commercial launch providers, denying them a valuable market. To quote from Walker and Miller's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, "it makes no sense for NASA to build rockets that are already available or can be developed at much lower cost by U.S. private industry. Why spend approximately $20 billion to build an unneeded SLS super-heavy-lift rocket, for instance, when existing commercial rockets can carry payloads more often, efficiently and cheaply?"

But the launch controversy is only one aspect of the larger issue. NASA is focused on its own heritage and image, not on the huge benefits to humankind to be gained from exploiting off-Earth resources. I wonder if NASA and its political supporters even subconsciously feel as though that would be somehow immoral? Does NASA feel as does this commenter of my article:

"The idea of interplanetary harvesting absolutely astounds and appals me!
"Have we humans not learned anything from the impact of over harvesting of resources on planet earth?
"What in heavens name will the repercussions be if we start messing with resources on other planets??? I for one shudder to think what they might entail."

Hmm. There are 870 million chronically undernourished people in the world.  One quarter of the world's population lacks electricity. Is it important to address these inequities? If so, more resources will be required. Obtaining those resources off-Earth will reduce the scarring of the surface from mining, reduce the greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere, and reduce the production of wastes. Those resources will not be available if they cannot be obtained economically, even profitably.

• Do airline companies make profits? Yes, and low-cost air transportation is available even to those of modest incomes.

• Do pharmaceutical companies make profits? Yes, and their products save millions of lives.

• Do electric utilities make profits? Yes, and cheap, reliable electricity keeps food refrigerated, houses warm or cool, and cell phones charged.

 And speaking of ROI, a very thorough study of the UK's space industry shows it to be one of the most productive of all industrial sectors. I don't know of a corresponding study for the US, but anecdotally, I understand that NASA typically uses the figure of $8 returned for every $1 invested.

Government support of the space resources industry should become like government support of aviation, electrical transmission, nuclear power, pharmaceuticals, and virtually every other economic sector. It will help the companies flourish, and make new benefits available to all.
 
 An updated NASA vision should support this.

Articles on space economy ignite conversation

A couple of months ago, I posted an article in the online academic journal The Conversation. The theme was the great progress that space robots have made. My purpose was to create some buzz in advance of our off-Earth mining forum. We certainly got that--we received international media attention. For a week I was a TV figure.

All the attention and exhausting interview schedule caused me to forget that article completely. But several weeks later, I noticed that it had been viewed 1,700 times. Hmm, thought I, not bad!

So I wrote another one. The theme, this time, is how the global economy might some day become interplanetary. The central discussion point is how to put a value on resources found in space. Protection of Earth's environment, while providing energy to raise living standards for billions on Earth, provides the motivation.

It has been viewed 1,500 times in the last 24 hours. The buzz continues.